Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Careers and People
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
IoT Product Safety: If It Appears Too Good to Be True, It Probably Is
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
ccashell
ccashell,
 User Rank: Apprentice
3/12/2018 | 11:47:00 PM
Seriously? The misinformation is strong with this one.
Wow, there is a lot of misinformation, confusion, and good old fashioned "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" (FUD) in this article.  It almost reads like a paid piece from a hardware manfuacturer.

I'm a little amazed that someone would write such a weak and unsubstatianted article in a time when Linux has become the foundation of most mobile and many IoT devices.  When every Android smartphone has it's base operating system source code available for anyone, your argument needs a lot more than vague hints and bad analogies to be reasonable.

The simple fact is that IoT devices are in such a horrible and sad state with regards to security that it's hard to imagine how it could get much worse.  Mandating that information is available for people and communities to attempt to improve or fix issues at least leads to options.

I want to write more, but it's just hard to even take this article seriously.
stephen56
stephen56,
 User Rank: Apprentice
3/17/2018 | 3:08:08 PM
IOT devices are insecure by design, not repair
Ugh. So much speculation and so few facts.  

First, anyone that has actuallty read the proposed legislation in 18 states would notice that the only information, firmware, parts, tools and diagnostics required are those ALREADY being provided to thousands of repair techs around the world. None of this information is secret, and most of it is arleady available illegally in asia.  Legislation is carefully targeted for the sole purpose of allowing legal competition for repair services at the choice of the owner. 

Even when the equipment being repaired is being used for a security function (such as a security camera), the application run on cpu within the camera is irrelevant to repair.   The camera either passes a signal correctly or it does not.  Someone has to repair the camera, and give it back to the owner.  Its the owner that cares about his or her security -- and its still the owner that gets to decide whom to trust for repair.  

If anyone has any doubts of the responsibility of the OEM to protect the security of the owner, just read the purchase contract closely,  Every contract always dislaims responsibility for how equipment is used and carefull limits their risk and potential damages in that contract.

As to actual cyber risk -- equipnent is either secure by design, or insecure.  Sadly, millions of IOT devices are being thrown into the marketplace with weak or absent security -- allowing botnets and other hacks to proliferate worldwide.  These devices are already up and running and attached to a network, unlike devices which are broken and offline.   Equipment under repair is among the most secure because its offline. 

Opponents to Right to Repair have gleefully suggested that consumers will lose personal data without any explaination of how that might happen.  We've yet to hear of anyone losing personal data as the result of an iPhone repair -- because Apple does an excellent job of security and encryption.  Apple has even stated publically that despite their source code being posted on the internet, personal security was never at risk. 

Happy to discuss any real examples of how repair as a business has made IOT devices less secure. 

 

 


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-40942
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-28
Tenda TX3 US_TX3V1.0br_V16.03.13.11 is vulnerable to stack overflow via compare_parentcontrol_time.
CVE-2022-40912
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-28
ETAP Lighting International NV ETAP Safety Manager 1.0.0.32 is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS). Input passed to the GET parameter 'action' is not properly sanitized before being returned to the user. This can be exploited to execute arbitrary HTML/JS code in a user's browser session in cont...
CVE-2022-22523
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-28
An improper authentication vulnerability exists in the Carlo Gavazzi UWP3.0 in multiple versions and CPY Car Park Server in Version 2.8.3 Web-App which allows an authentication bypass to the context of an unauthorised user if free-access is disabled.
CVE-2022-22524
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-28
In Carlo Gavazzi UWP3.0 in multiple versions and CPY Car Park Server in Version 2.8.3 an unauthenticated remote attacker could utilize a SQL-Injection vulnerability to gain full database access, modify users and stop services .
CVE-2022-22525
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-28
In Carlo Gavazzi UWP3.0 in multiple versions and CPY Car Park Server in Version 2.8.3 an remote attacker with admin rights could execute arbitrary commands due to missing input sanitization in the backup restore function